CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 octobre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } Published on 27 October 2025   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 28588/24 Gela MTIVLISHVILI against Georgia lodged on 29 August 2024 communicated on 6 October 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged hindrance of the applicant’s journalistic activities while covering a confrontation between the police and several residents (and their supporters) who were being forcibly evicted from an apartment. The applicant alleges that while filming the incident with his mobile phone, he was violently arrested and forced into a police van, where he was subjected to physical and verbal assault. He was then taken to a police station and unlawfully detained for approximately four hours. In connection with the incident the applicant was convicted of an administrative offence of failing to comply with a lawful order of police (Article 173 of the Code of Administrative Offences) and was fined 2,000 Georgian Lari (approximately 680   euros). The applicant complains under Articles 5, 6, 10 and 18 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted domestic remedies as regards his complaint under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention concerning his administrative arrest and subsequent detention (see Matchavariani v.   Georgia , no. 46852/21, §§ 48-49, 20 May 2025)?   2.     Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was his arrest on 23 January 2024 at about 2.00   p.m. and subsequent detention until about 6.30 p.m. carried out in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law (see Dzerkorashvili and Others v.   Georgia , no. 70572/16, §§ 100-105, 2 March 2023)?   3.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention (see Makarashvili and Others v. Georgia , nos.   23158/20 and 2 others, § 64, 1 September 2022)?   4.     Do the circumstances of the present case, notably the applicant’s arrest, escorting to the police station, his detention there, and subsequent prosecution under Article 173 of the Code of Administrative Offences, taken separately or cumulatively, disclose an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression under Article 10 § 1 of the Convention, including the freedom to receive and impart information and ideas?   If so, was this interference prescribed by law, in pursuance of a legitimate aim, and “necessary in a democratic society” within the meaning of Article   10 §   2 of the Convention?   5.     Were the restrictions imposed by the State in the present case, purportedly permitted under Articles 5 and 10 of the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by the said provisions, in violation of Article 18 the Convention (see the recapitulation of the relevant general principles in Merabishvili v. Georgi a ([GC], no. 72508/13, §§ 287-317, 28   November 2017) and Navalnyy v.   Russia ([GC], nos. 29580/1 and 4 others, §§ 164-65, 15 November 2018))?